Out of Power?

Is the U.S. falling behind other nations in the commercial development of atomic power? In Washington last week the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy opened its annual hearings on the state of the atom, and promptly heard diametrically opposite answers to the question. Said Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss: "No." Said his fellow AEC commissioner, Thomas Murray: "Yes."

Chairman Strauss acknowledged that there have been some delays in the nuclear-power program, but insisted that on the whole progress has been excellent. Strauss predicted that "five, and perhaps six" reactors, using varied methods of converting atomic energy to electricity, will be delivering power before this year's end. Most are AEC pilot models, but one is the big (100,000 kw.) AEC-Duquesne Light Co. reactor at Shippingport, Pa. In all, said Strauss, "at least 18" commercial reactors are under discussion, specific negotiation or construction in the U.S., and U.S. companies have announced plans for building seven more abroad. As if to support his stand, three more groups of private-power companies announced plans for U.S. reactors last week: A group of Northwest utilities, headed by Pacific Power & Light, took an option on 14 square miles near Yakima, Wash. as a possible reactor site. EURJ A group of ten Ohio Valley utilities, headed by American Gas & Electric Co., disclosed plans for a 13,000-kw. prototype plant and later on a 200,000-kw reactor. EUR| A group of California utilities proposed to build a reactor under the leadership of Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Taking the stand after Strauss, Murray argued that private utilities cannot justify the investment in nuclear reactors in terms of today's electricity needs. Not only is the estimated reactor cost high, but actual construction costs have been running 50% and even 100% above original estimates. The result: many proposed reactor plans have not gone beyond the announcement stage. As a sample of how fast the rest of the world is moving, Murray pointed to EURATOM (the six-nation European Atomic Community--see FOREIGN NEWS), which recently set its 1963 reactor objective at 3,000,000 kw. (equal to 30 of the Shippingport reactors, and twice the capacity of all U.S. civilian-power reactors now projected), with a goal of 15 million kw. by 1967. EURATOM, said Murray, may get its reactors from the British, whose Calder Hall reactor is already in operation.

One big roadblock to faster reactor progress, said Murray, is the fear of some private utilities that Government reactors (such as those proposed in the Gore-Holifield bill now pending before Congress) would lead to an "atomic TVA." As a way out, Murray suggested that Congress might direct AEC to build some full-scale reactors adjoining AEC plants, thus avoid competing with private power as they would if they were scattered throughout the U.S. At week's end it looked as though some such middle way might have to be found to get the reactor program in high gear--or Congress might pass the Gore bill, which was only narrowly defeated last year.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.